Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.


Introduction
][3][4] A successful PRP typically entails collaboration between editors, reviewers, and authors. 4Authors are responsible for conducting research, analyzing data, and writing the manuscript to present their findings clearly, accurately, and comprehensively. 4Reviewers, on the other hand, evaluate the manuscript's quality and provide 'constructive' feedback. 4heir goal is to ensure that the research meets the journal's standards and contributes significantly to the field. 4isunderstandings between authors and reviewers can lead to the frequent rejection of high-quality submissions. 4,5sponding to reviewers' critiques is one of the most stressful phases of the publication process. 4Therefore, it is crucial to establish strategic methods for authors to handle reviewers' feedback in alignment with ethical guidelines, 6 and to provide thorough protocols for addressing diverse reviewers' comments and principles for implementing successful revisions. 7iven that a document titled "Responses to Reviewers" is mandatory during the PRP, and recognizing that some authors may struggle with addressing reviewers' comments, it is essential to develop authors' skills in resubmitting research and clinical scholarship reports. 8This is critical for the effective dissemination of the authors' work.This opinion article aimed to equip authors with the knowledge needed to engage effectively in the PRP and improve the chances of manuscript acceptance.

Tips and advice
The PRP is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, ensuring the rigor and quality of research. 4Authors must navigate this process skillfully to enhance their manuscripts and address reviewers' feedback. 4According to Day and Gastel, 9 "Responding to reviewers' comments is not just about defending your work; it is about engaging in a constructive dialogue to improve the manuscript".To help authors defend their manuscript and engage in constructive dialogue, this paper emphasizes understanding critiques, prioritizing feedback, and maintaining professionalism throughout the process.
Table 1 summarizes the key guidelines and tips for responding to reviewers.The following sections describe these tips to help authors confidently address peer reviewers' comments and move closer to publication.

Consume reviewers' critiques
Given that the review report is crucial for the editor's publication decision, 10 authors should: i) View feedback as a valuable opportunity to improve their work; ii) Not perceive critical remarks from reviewers as personal attacks; iii) Remember that reviewers are critiquing their work, not them as individuals 10 ; REVISED Amendments from Version 2 The third reviewer identified some areas where our manuscript could be strengthened by incorporating additional insights and clarifying certain points.We carefully considered the reviewer's suggestions and have revised our paper accordingly.Specific revisions include: 1. Addition of some tips and advice related to strategies for prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism during the peer review process, and seeking for particular comment.2. Adding some examples of major and minor remarks received by reviewers.3. Advising authors to refer to specific guidelines and policies provided by international organizations such as the COPE and ICMJE, and to be cautious when using artificial intelligence tools for proofreading the manuscript.
In addition to these revisions, we have added three new references to support our arguments.
We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript and addressed the third reviewer's comments effectively.
Any further responses from the reviewers can be found at the end of the article • Highlight changes for easy verification • Follow the journal's submission requirements • Check for errors in the final version iv) Approach negative or major comments with a neutral and objective perspective 7 ; leveraging them for improvement.Some frustrating or adverse comments may hold validity and significantly enhance the research, [11][12][13][14][15] and v) Transcend feelings of frustration, sadness, and perceived unfairness. 6 is crucial that authors recognize that while the article has not been rejected, the editor has given an opportunity for revision and resubmission. 4To navigate this process effectively, the authors should advocate adhering to some general guiding principles, which are systematic review, patience and reflection, and maintain composure.First, authors should methodically examine comments, categorize them as "major" or "minor," and store them securely.This structured approach ensures careful consideration and appropriate addressing of all feedback.Second, authors should let feedback sit for a couple of days before responding, and then avoid hastily formulating responses. 7Authors are asked to "sleep on it" before starting the revision process. 13Third, feeling overwhelmed by numerous revision suggestions is natural.However, authors should remain composed and evaluate each comment objectively.Rather than panicking, authors should approach revisions calmly and discern the value of each suggestion. 13ad carefully and understand the reviewers' or editor's comments/critiques/suggestions After reviewing the comments, authors should: i) Carefully examine the editor's letter and consider all remarks provided by the reviewers. 7The goal is to pinpoint the specific points emphasized and address any additional issues raised 7 ; ii) Take sufficient time to understand each comment, ensuring they grasp the reviewers' perspective and the precise issues highlighted. 7,16If necessary, authors can break down comments into separate points 7,16 ; iii) Distinguish between positive feedback and critiques or requests for revisions 7,8,17,18 ; iv) Open the document where each reviewers' comments are saved, number each comment, and label them accordingly, attributing each comment to the respective reviewer (e.g., Review 1, comment 1) 6 ; and v) Evaluate whether the comments can be adequately addressed and whether the revisions align with reviewers' expectations. 16e objective is to show the editor and reviewers a commitment to the process by meticulously addressing each comment and implementing necessary changes.

Seek opinion
The PRP can be complex, and addressing reviewers' comments effectively requires careful consideration and expertise. 4onsulting co-authors and colleagues well-versed in the work can provide valuable insights and perspectives that authors may not have considered on their own. 15Brainstorming with the research group can generate innovative ideas, particularly when addressing complex reviewers' criticisms.It also helps reach a consensus on how to address the comments. 7In practice, if authors are uncertain about how to address specific comments, they are encouraged to consult the editor in chief or reach out to a mentor with expertise in the field.This approach provides clarity and helps ensure that responses are well informed and appropriate.
Prioritize feedback dealing with requests for major revisions Reviewers typically structure their comments with a summary paragraph, followed by detailed constructive feedback and recommendations for refinement. 10They categorize comments as "major" or "minor".
Major comments reflect the most concerning issues that must be revised for the paper to be considered for publication. 19,20Effectively revising and clarifying major issues is fundamental to understanding the manuscript. 16,21These comments typically refer to the scientific and methodological aspects of a manuscript. 4Examples of major comments include modifying the central hypothesis, the main algorithm, and redoing an experiment (e.g.; the central hypothesis of the study needs to be revised to better align with the presented data.Specifically, the hypothesis should address the potential impact of variable X on outcome Y, which is currently not considered).
Minor issues, while important, do not typically influence the overall conclusions of the manuscript.Authors should make even minor requests and changes without engaging in disagreements with reviewers, even if they do not completely agree. 22Minor remarks may include unclear statements, missing or incorrect references, unclear data presentation, grammatical concerns, reformulation, adding additional references, adding an extra paragraph/table/figure, and adding an appendix (e.g.; the introduction section would benefit from the inclusion of recent references on the topic, particularly those published in the last five years). 7 practice, authors are advised to categorize each reviewer comments into major and minor ones, focusing on major revisions that directly influence the study's methodology, results, or conclusions.This approach helps authors address the most critical issues first.For example, if a reviewer requests a clarification on data analysis or the inclusion of additional experiments, these points should be addressed before responding to minor grammatical corrections or stylistic suggestions.
Be polite and respectful of all reviewers/express gratitude Throughout the process of responding to reviewers' reports, authors should remember that reviewers are typically wellmeaning colleagues who generously invest their time to assist authors in enhancing their study. 4Therefore, it is essential to regard their comments as constructive feedback and express gratitude for their invaluable contributions. 15Even if authors have reservations about a reviewer's perceived understanding, it is not advisable to convey such impressions to the reviewer. 13If the reviewers encounter difficulty comprehending certain aspects, it might be due to the authors' failure to clarify the idea sufficiently. 23,24Authors should remember that readers may vary in expertise, and some may be less experienced than the reviewers may. 15Thus, the authors should ensure that their work is clear and accessible to all readers, not just experts. 23Therefore, if the reviewers do not understand certain points, it is appropriate to apologize for not making them clear and to strive to clarify them further.Proceeding with revisions demonstrates to the reviewers that authors take their comments seriously. 8 some instances, authors may perceive reviewers' criticisms as discourteous. 17However, this could simply be a case of miscommunication. 15Responding rudely is unwarranted, especially considering the ultimate goal of getting the manuscript published. 23,25It is then strongly advised to maintain a polite tone throughout the response to the reviewers, and to refrain from emotional, confrontational, or defensive expressions, even if the authors disagree with the reviewers or feel that the requested changes are unnecessary. 23Even if it appears that the reviewers are using the review as an opportunity to "teach" them, 10 it is important to remain composed and respectful and to welcome reviewers' recommendations with a positive perspective. 8 practice, authors are advised to remain objective and not personalizing challenging critiques.Fr example, if a reviewer's tone seems harsh or overly critical, authors can acknowledge the reviewer's input, express gratitude, and focus on the content of the critique without addressing the tone directly.For instance, a response might begin with, "We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful feedback on our methodology," followed by a detailed explanation of how the comments were addressed or respectfully refuted with supporting evidence.
Pay attention to details: Respond to every point raised Generally, reviews are bulleted. 23If two distinct issues are brought up within one bullet point, authors should ensure that both critiques are explicitly responded to. 23Interspersing responses, breaking up one bullet point with multiple answers, helps maintain clarity and ensures each criticism receives a thorough response. 23If the authors are unable to respond to all points, it is reasonable to: i) Be specific in the response and address all points raised 13 ; ii) Avoid dodging difficult points by ignoring them; iii) Include additional information; provide requested data or figures that were not in the manuscript if they support the argument; iv) Add or update references and offer a supplementary file if the journal restricts the length of additional data 13 ; v) Delete unnecessary material, including figures or tables; vi) Shorten sections of the manuscript if necessary, specifying the extent of the reduction in words or percentage; and vii) Make minor corrections to the text, such as or revising grammar and typographical mistakes. 13,26is comprehensive approach demonstrates the authors' commitment and consideration of the review to both the editor and the reviewers, facilitating a smoother re-evaluation of their manuscript. 6,27nally, to uphold scholarly integrity, it is essential to avoid directly copying and pasting reviewers' comments into the manuscript. 8,28Instead, valuable suggestions provided by reviewers should be paraphrased and integrated into the manuscript using the author's own words. 8,28This practice not only maintains academic standards but also ensures that the incorporation of feedback reflects originality and thoughtful engagement with the review process. 8,28Emphasizing this issue reinforces the commitment to academic integrity, 29 and enhances the quality of the work.

Be thorough and plan responses
To enhance the quality of their responses and maintain clarity and professionalism, authors should: i) Organize responses systematically, addressing each comment with care and politeness, even if they disagree with the reviewers 6 ; ii) Number the reviewers' points and respond to them sequentially 18 ; iii) Provide specific responses and address all points raised by each reviewer in a formal manner 13,23 ; iv) Ensure that responses are detailed to facilitate better understanding by editors and reviewers; v) Clearly explain each reviewer's comments, respond to each criticism individually, point by point, and do not miss any comment 4,7,8,15 ; vi) Offer clear and concise explanations of revisions where necessary 4 ; vii) Submit responses directly below the reviewers' comments, tightening language, correcting any grammatical mistakes or misspellings, and incorporating corresponding changes in the revised manuscript 30 ; viii) Start each response to each comment with a clear and direct answer to the specific issue raised, providing a "yes" or "no" answer whenever possible. 13,23The objective is to demonstrate to the reviewers that authors have taken their comments seriously and to convey the actions they have taken in response to their critiques promptly 23 ; and ix) Comply, whenever feasible, with the requests of the reviewers. 23Change and modify where it makes sense.
If authors believe that a particular comment falls outside the scope of their study, they should explain and clarify the reasons for their stance in cases where they disagree with the reviewers or feel that an additional experiment or analysis is unnecessary. 13oid arguing every single comment Authors have the right to engage in discussions regarding reviewers' comments, but it is best to avoid disputing multiple comments. 31If encountering serious disagreement with reviewers, particularly if a suggestion is deemed unreasonable or requests excessive work that strays from the study's objectives, authors can refute the suggestion and make no changes. 7n such instances, it is imperative to: i) Acknowledge the comment; ii) Provide a concise, factual explanation justifying the decision not to implement the suggestion 31 ; and iii) Justify any refusals in the response letter and in the comments. 7,13,32,33 is worth noting that reviewers may only tolerate one instance of refusal. 34Engaging in a "fight" with the reviewers is unwise, even if the suggestions are flawed or misunderstood. 23Arguing extensively with the reviewers may frustrate them and jeopardize the opportunity to publish the manuscript.If a point of contention is substantial enough to jeopardize the manuscript's integrity or the arguments presented, authors may appeal to the editor for intervention. 23biguous situations Sometimes, authors may encounter ambiguous or conflicting feedback, conflict of interest concerns, or suggested additions that exceed the journal guidelines. 4In such situations, authors should handle reviewers' comments with careful consideration and diligence.At times, authors may encounter unclear or ambiguous comments.In such situations, authors should seek clarification rather than provide an incorrect response. 4Clarification can be requested in the cover letter or by contacting the editor via email.Sometimes, authors might receive conflicting feedback from two different reviewers. 7In such instances, it is important not to become overwhelmed and to start by thoroughly examining both sets of comments, choosing the one that best matches the authors' vision for the manuscript. 32Authors should then address this selected feedback by making the required adjustments to their manuscript.Additionally, it is advisable to outline to the editor the two contradictory comments and provide arguments in support of the comment selected by the authors. 7,34This serves to clarify the authors' rationale behind the decision and helps ensure consistency and coherence in the revision process.In certain instances, suspicions of ethics violations may arise.For instance, a reviewer might reject a manuscript only to later conduct a similar study and publish it. 34Similarly, a reviewer may recommend citing an article that does not align with the study's scope. 34In such cases, authors may choose to send a separate letter/Email to the editor to clarify the circumstances and possibly suggest a change of reviewer or a reconsideration of the comment. 23When reviewers express concerns about citing specific authors due to their reputation or past behavior, it is crucial to evaluate whether the issue is related to the individual or the research itself.If the request is rooted in personal or ethical concerns, authors should consider discreetly contacting the editor for guidance.With the increasing popularity of post-publication peer review platforms like PubPeer, ScienceOpen, and PREreview, such situations may become more common, necessitating careful consideration by authors. 35Finally, in case authors suspect that a reviewer has used artificial intelligence -assisted technologies to produce a review report (without acknowledging it), they need to alert the editors. 36To handle such situations, authors can refer to specific guidelines and policies provided by international organizations (e.g., Committee on Publication Ethics, 37 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 38 ).These guidelines provides comprehensive resources and guidelines for ethical practices in publication, including how to handle conflicts of interest and other ethical issues. 37,38y following these guidelines, 37,38 authors can ensure that they handle ambiguous and ethical situations appropriately, maintaining the integrity of the PRP and their research.These steps/approaches are crucial for maintaining transparency and professionalism and the integrity of the PRP, and ensuring fair and ethical treatment of manuscripts.

Reviewers' requests and journal's guidelines
If reviewers request additions such as references, tables, or text that exceed the journal's limits, authors may encounter a dilemma.If they agree to these changes and believe they enhance the manuscript, authors should implement the changes and address the issue in their responses, seeking the editor's authorization. 7However, if authors find that these changes contradict their vision for the manuscript, they can use the recommendations for authors to justify refusing the change.
Authors should then write to the editor to explain why they cannot comply with the reviewers' request. 23,32This approach ensures that the manuscript remains aligned with the author's intentions while also respecting the journal's guidelines and maintaining transparency in the revision process. 23,32ighlight changes in the revised manuscript -Use typography to assist the reviewers in navigating through responses For the benefit of both reviewers and editors, authors should streamline the revision process and make it as easy as possible for them to navigate.Well-organized responses can reduce confusion and frustration, ultimately increasing the likelihood of acceptance.Here are some recommended practices: ✓ Detail the responses, highlighting significant changes in the revised version, such as new experiments or analyses that modify conclusions. 13This allows the editor to easily track modifications without searching extensively in the revised manuscript; ✓ Address the response directly to the editor, rather than the reviewers.For example, use phrases like "We agree with the reviewer…" instead of "We agree with you …. » ✓ Ensure that every comment is addressed in consecutive order, aligning with the sequence of comments provided by the reviewers.One approach is to copy and paste all comments from reviewers and editors, inserting the response to each point directly below it in a distinct color or font to distinguish between comments and responses. 15,16 the journal requires identifying changes on a single copy of the manuscript, authors may use Microsoft Word's track changes feature or highlight with a marker.They may use different colored fonts or highlights to separate corresponding responses to different reviewers and clarify this in the cover letter. 7However, authors should be mindful that this approach might result in a lengthy manuscript that is challenging to read and may not effectively juxtapose the reviewers' comments with authors" changes.
Another effective approach to organizing responses to reviewers is to utilize a table format that includes the reviewers' comments, author responses, and corresponding changes with page and line references in separate columns 6,7,13,23,31,34,39 (Appendix 1). 40

Revise and improve
After addressing all comments, authors must ensure any necessary corrections are made to the manuscript. 31It is crucial to meticulously check that all changes made are properly documented.Highlighting the changes is preferable as it makes them easier for reviewers and the editor to verify. 4,32If the journal requires two versions of the revised manuscript -one with highlighted changes and another in a clean format -authors should comply. 7,34It is important to carefully review the journal's submission requirements for the revised version and adhere to the provided instructions, as they specify how changes should be incorporated. 7view again If English is not the authors' native language, they should consider having the final version corrected by an expert translator. 6Alternatively, authors can use Artificial Intelligence tools to assist with the proofreading process, but it is important to declare the use of such tools. 3Authors should be cautious, as artificial intelligence tools may not catch all linguistic nuances or contextual errors, which can lead to oversight.Authors are advised to use artificial intelligence tools as a supplementary measure, rather than a primary one.This approach ensures a more balanced and thorough proofreading process. 4,38,41Before finalizing the manuscript, it is crucial to perform a final thorough review to ensure that no errors have arisen due to the changes made. 7press gratitude again Taking a moment to express gratitude towards the reviewers and the editor demonstrates professionalism and courtesy.Therefore, authors should not forget to reiterate their thanks to them to conclude their cover letter. 4,23,32 practice, authors are asked to include an introduction and conclusion in their response letter.This provides a comprehensive and respectful response, enhancing the overall impression of the manuscript revision process.Authors should begin the response letter with a brief introductory paragraph expressing appreciation to the reviewers for their time and valuable feedback 6 (Appendix 1). 40This introduction sets a positive tone and acknowledges the reviewers' contributions.For example: "The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their thorough and insightful feedback on our manuscript.We have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions to address their concerns.
We believe these changes have significantly improved the manuscript."After addressing each comment, the authors should conclude the response letter with a closing paragraph summarizing the major changes made and reiterating gratitude for the reviewers' input 23 (Appendix 1). 40For example, "In conclusion, we have made substantial revisions to the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments.We believe these changes have strengthened the quality and clarity of our work.We are grateful for the reviewers' constructive feedback and look forward to your favorable consideration of our revised manuscript."Finally, including reviewer acknowledgements in the article's "acknowledgements section" can strengthen the manuscript.When reviewers' feedback has substantially improved the work, formally recognizing their contributions demonstrates appreciation beyond the response letter. 15This practice not only cultivates positive relationships but also acknowledges the crucial role of peer reviewers in advancing knowledge. 15By highlighting their efforts, authors recognize the often-underappreciated work that reviewers do to refine scholarly articles. 15submit promptly It is advisable to resubmit the manuscript as quickly as possible, while the reviewers and the editor still have the work fresh in their minds. 4A prompt resubmission, accompanied by a detailed response letter, a clear response table, and highlighted changes, can significantly increase the likelihood of paper acceptance. 32By providing a comprehensive and organized submission, authors demonstrate their commitment to addressing reviewers' feedback and improving the quality of the manuscript, thereby enhancing its chances of acceptance.

Conclusion
The PRP serves dual purposes. 34For publishers, it offers a comprehensive evaluation of manuscripts from diverse perspectives, guarding against potential pitfalls like plagiarism. 34For authors, it offers invaluable external insights, enabling them to refine and enhance their work, thereby improving its prospects for acceptance. 34vigating reviewers' critiques can be daunting for authors. 23However, the reviewers' comments are not personal attacks, but rather constructive contributions aimed at facilitating publication. 23Handling reviewers' feedback appropriately and ethically significantly enhances the likelihood of manuscript acceptance. 23Therefore, authors should approach the PRP with diligence, carefully considering each comment and making necessary adjustments to strengthen their manuscript.Additionally, maintaining clear and respectful communication with reviewers and editors throughout the process fosters a collaborative and productive environment conducive to scholarly advancement.

Take home message
Responding to reviewers' comments effectively is crucial for the successful publication of a scientific paper.By following structured guidelines, authors can address critiques thoroughly and respectfully, leading to improved manuscripts and fostering positive relationships with reviewers.
In section "Tips and advices" correct and put advice instead of advices (uncountable noun) Overall, the tips provided are practical and aligned with the goal of enhancing the manuscript through the peer review process.It would be beneficial to expand on specific strategies for prioritizing feedback and provide examples of how to maintain professionalism when responding to particularly challenging critiques.

Consume reviewers' critiques Additional tip:
-Seeking guidance: If an author is unsure how to address a particular comment, they can reach out to the editor or a mentor for guidance.
Seek opinion ..... Overall, this section provides a comprehensive overview of the strategies authors should employ when responding to reviewer comments.The text could benefit from incorporating specific examples of major and minor reviewer comments to illustrate the concepts more concretely.

Ambiguous situations
in this paragraph the authors provided solid and actionable advice for authors dealing with ambiguous situations during the peer review process with important guidance on handling ambiguous situations that authors may face during the PRP.However, in Ethical consideration: this section could be strengthened by referencing specific guidelines or policies that journals or organizations like COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) have in place to handle such situations.This would give authors a clearer path to follow.

Reviewers' requests and journal's guidelines
This part offers a well-rounded approach to handling reviewers' requests that may conflict with journal guidelines, as well as practical advice on organizing and presenting revisions.Moreover, it provides valuable, practical advice for authors dealing with the peer review process.It balances the need to respect both reviewers' suggestions and the authors' original vision, while also emphasizing the importance of organization and clarity in presenting revisions.Some improvements could be made by simplifying certain recommendations, providing clearer guidance on seeking editorial approval, and streamlining references.
The suggestion to use tables to organize responses to reviewers is excellent.This method is often recommended as it allows for a clear, organized presentation of how each comment was addressed, helping both reviewers and editors to easily follow the changes made.

Revise and improve
A solid foundation for authors navigating the manuscript revision process is offered in this section.It covers key areas such as documentation, communication, and final review, with a clear emphasis on professionalism and attention to detail.
However, I recommend reducing repetitive focus on gratitude (A single, well-crafted expression of thanks may be sufficient).The inclusion of a brief discussion on the limitations of AI tools and a more detailed reference to the appendix would also improve the section's overall effectiveness.

AI Tool Use:
The mention of AI tools for proofreading is timely, but the section could benefit from a brief discussion on the limitations of these tools.Authors should be cautious, as AI tools may not catch all linguistic nuances or contextual errors.A recommendation to use AI tools as a supplementary measure, rather than a primary one, would be more balanced.

Conclusion
The authors provide a strong summary of the PRP's significance for both publishers and authors.The conclusion effectively encapsulates the dual roles of the PRP for both publishers and authors.By highlighting how the PRP not only serves as a quality control mechanism for publishers but also provides authors with valuable feedback, the conclusion underlines the significance of this process in academic publishing.
I recommend the indexing of this paper after considering the above mentioned comments.

Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Yes
Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?Yes

Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
and minor critiques, focusing on major revisions that directly impact the study's methodology, results, or conclusions.This approach helps authors address the most critical issues first.For example, if a reviewer requests a clarification on data analysis or the inclusion of additional experiments, these points should be addressed before responding to minor grammatical corrections or stylistic suggestions.Maintaining professionalism: We emphasized the importance of remaining objective and not personalizing critiques.We recommend authors carefully read the reviewer's comments, take a moment to reflect, and respond thoughtfully, especially to challenging For example, if a reviewer's tone seems harsh or overly critical, authors can acknowledge the reviewer's input, express gratitude, and focus on the content of the critique without addressing the tone directly.For instance, a response might begin with, "We thank the reviewer for their insightful feedback on our methodology," followed by a detailed explanation of how the comments were addressed or respectfully refuted with supporting evidence.We have added the following sentence in the section "Prioritize feedback dealing with requests for major revisions": In practice, authors are advised to categorize each reviewer comments into major and minor ones, focusing on major revisions that directly influence the study's methodology, results, or conclusions.This approach helps authors address the most critical issues first.For example, if a reviewer requests a clarification on data analysis or the inclusion of additional experiments, these points should be addressed before responding to minor grammatical corrections or stylistic suggestions.We have also added the following sentence in the section "Be polite and respectful of all reviewers/express gratitude": In practice, authors are advised to remain objective and not personalizing challenging critiques.

COMMENT 3.
Consume reviewers' critiques Additional tip:-Seeking guidance: If an author is unsure how to address a particular comment, they can reach out to the editor or a mentor for guidance.

RESPONSE
We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion.We have incorporated the additional tip on seeking guidance in the "Seek opinion" section.Specifically, we highlighted that if authors are unsure about how to address a particular comment, they can seek advice from either the editor or a mentor.This ensures authors are equipped to respond to all comments effectively.We have added the following sentence in the "Seek opinion" section: In practice, if authors are uncertain about how to address specific comments, they are encouraged to consult the editor in chief or reach out to a mentor with expertise in the field.This approach provides clarity and helps ensure that responses are well informed and appropriate.

COMMENT 4.
Seek opinion ..... Overall, this section provides a comprehensive overview of the strategies authors should employ when responding to reviewer comments.
The text could benefit from incorporating specific examples of major and minor reviewer comments to illustrate the concepts more concretely.

RESPONSE
We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion.We have added the following sentences inside the section "Prioritize feedback dealing with requests for major revisions" Examples of major comments include modifying the central hypothesis, the main algorithm, and redoing an experiment (e.g.; the central hypothesis of the study needs to be revised to better align with the presented data.Specifically, the hypothesis should address the potential impact of variable X on outcome Y, which is currently considered).Minor remarks may include unclear statements, missing or incorrect references, unclear data presentation, grammatical concerns, reformulation, adding additional references, adding an extra paragraph/table/figure, and adding an appendix (e.g.; the introduction section would benefit from the inclusion of recent references on the topic, particularly those published in the last five years). 7

COMMENT 5.
Ambiguous situations in this paragraph the authors provided solid and actionable advice for authors dealing with ambiguous situations during the peer review process with important guidance on handling ambiguous situations that authors may face during the PRP.However, in Ethical consideration: this section could be strengthened by referencing specific guidelines or policies that journals or organizations like COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) have in place to handle such situations.This would give authors a clearer path to follow.

RESPONSE
We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion.We have added the following sentences inside the section "Ambiguous situations" Finally, in case authors suspect that a reviewer has used artificial intelligence -assisted technologies to produce a review report (without acknowledging it), they need to alert the editors. 36To handle such situations, authors can refer to specific guidelines and policies provided by international organizations (e.g., Committee on Publication Ethics, 37 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 38 ).These guidelines provides comprehensive resources and guidelines for ethical practices in publication, including how to handle conflicts of interest and other ethical issues. 37, 38By following these guidelines, 37, 38 authors can ensure that they handle ambiguous and ethical situations appropriately, maintaining the integrity of the PRP and their research.

Reviewers' requests and journal's guidelines
This part offers a well-rounded approach to handling reviewers' requests that may conflict with journal guidelines, as well as practical advice on organizing and presenting revisions.Moreover, it provides valuable, practical advice for authors dealing with the peer review process.It balances the need to respect both reviewers' suggestions and the authors' original vision, while also emphasizing the importance of organization and clarity in presenting revisions.Some improvements could be made by simplifying certain recommendations, providing clearer guidance on seeking editorial approval, and streamlining references.The suggestion to use tables to organize responses to reviewers is excellent.This method is often recommended as it allows for a clear, organized presentation of how each comment was addressed, helping both reviewers and editors to easily follow the changes made.

RESPONSE
We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion.No action is needed.

COMMENT 7.
Revise and improve A solid foundation for authors navigating the manuscript revision process is offered in this section.It covers key areas such as documentation, communication, and final review, with a clear emphasis on professionalism and attention to detail.However, I recommend reducing repetitive focus on gratitude (A single, well-crafted expression of thanks may be sufficient).

RESPONSE
We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion.We have reduced the repetitive focus on gratitude.

COMMENT 8. AI Tool Use:
The mention of AI tools for proofreading is timely, but the section could benefit from a brief discussion on the limitations of these tools.Authors should be cautious, as AI tools may not catch all linguistic nuances or contextual errors.A recommendation to use AI tools as a supplementary measure, rather than a primary one, would be more balanced.The inclusion of a brief discussion on the limitations of AI tools and a more detailed reference to the appendix would also improve the section's overall effectiveness.

RESPONSE
We acknowledge the timely mention of AI tools for proofreading.We have added the following sentence inside the "Review again" section: Authors should be cautious, as artificial intelligence tools may not catch all linguistic nuances or contextual errors, which can lead to oversight.Authors are advised to use artificial intelligence tools as a supplementary measure, rather than a primary one.This approach ensures a more balanced and thorough proofreading process. 4, 38, 41COMMENT 9.

Conclusion
The authors provide a strong summary of the PRP's significance for both publishers and authors.The conclusion effectively encapsulates the dual roles of the PRP for both publishers and authors.By highlighting how the PRP not only serves as a quality control mechanism for publishers but also provides authors with valuable feedback, the conclusion underlines the significance of this process in academic publishing.I recommend the indexing of this paper after considering the above mentioned comments.

RESPONSE
We thank the reviewer for this excellent feedback.No action is needed.

COMMENT 10.
Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?Yes Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?Yes Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?Yes Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?Yes RESPONSE Thank you for your positive feedback and for the 4 "yes".
The logical organization of the manuscript, with well-defined headings and subheadings, greatly aids in its readability.By structuring the content into distinct sections, the authors make it easier for readers to navigate the text and locate the information most relevant to their particular situation.This clarity in organization also helps to highlight the key messages and guidance offered, thereby enhancing the utility of the manuscript as a reference guide.

Practical and Applicable Advice:
The article excels in offering actionable advice that authors can readily apply when responding to reviewers.For example, the suggestion to break down complex reviewer comments into manageable parts and to address each point methodically helps demystify what can often feel like an overwhelming process.

Emphasis on Professionalism and Constructive Dialogue:
A key strength of the manuscript is its consistent emphasis on professionalism and the promotion of constructive dialogue.By advocating for a balanced approach that combines firmness in defending one's scholarly contributions with openness to constructive feedback, the manuscript reinforces the importance of maintaining a respectful and cooperative dynamic between authors and reviewers.○ III.Areas for Improvement: Despite these strengths, there are several areas where the manuscript could be further enhanced by incorporating additional insights and clarifying certain points.I offer the following suggestions based on my personal experience as both an author and a reviewer: Addressing Requests for Non-Citation of Specific Authors in the "Ambiguous Situations" Section: It would be beneficial for the manuscript to include guidance on handling situations where reviewers request that specific authors not be cited due to reputational concerns or prior behavior.In such cases, it is vital to determine whether the request pertains to the author as an individual or to the research itself.If the request is directed at the author for personal or ethical reasons, authors should consider contacting the editor privately to discuss the best course of action.This scenario is increasingly relevant in light of the growing prominence of post-publication peer review platforms such as PubPeer, where scholars openly critique the work of their peers.This transparency can sometimes lead to contentious situations, where certain researchers may be effectively "blacklisted" due to their public critiques.Addressing this issue would provide authors with a clearer understanding of how to manage such delicate situations.

Incorporating a Practice of Acknowledging Reviewers in the "Express Gratitude Again" Section:
The manuscript could be further enriched by suggesting the inclusion of reviewers in the acknowledgements section of the article when their feedback has substantially contributed to improving the manuscript.Beyond thanking reviewers in the response letter, a formal mention in the acknowledgements section demonstrates the authors' appreciation for the constructive role reviewers play in refining scholarly work.This practice not only fosters goodwill but also acknowledges the often-overlooked labor of peer reviewers who contribute to the advancement of knowledge through their insights.

Highlighting the Issue of Plagiarism of Reviewers' Comments:
An additional point worth addressing is the problematic practice of directly copying and pasting reviewers' comments into the manuscript.This practice may be viewed as a lack of originality and could raise concerns regarding academic integrity.It is advisable that if reviewers' comments provide valuable suggestions for improvement, these ideas should be ○ paraphrased and integrated into the manuscript in the authors' own words.An extreme example can be drawn from my own experience, where authors copied nearly a full page of my comments verbatim to create a new "Limitations" section in a paper published by a "gray" publisher.Emphasizing the importance of originality in incorporating reviewer feedback would help maintain the scholarly standards of the work.

Reducing Redundancies and Repetition for Greater Clarity:
While the manuscript provides many useful insights, there are instances where certain points, such as those concerning professionalism and the manner of responding to reviewers, are repeated multiple times throughout the text.Streamlining these sections by consolidating similar points would help reduce redundancies and improve the overall flow of the manuscript, making it more concise and engaging for the reader.

○
To sum up, this manuscript is a highly valuable resource for authors seeking to effectively navigate the peer review process.The incorporation of the suggested improvements would further enhance its comprehensiveness and clarity, ensuring that it continues to serve as a practical guide for both new and experienced researchers.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
The manuscript is a well-crafted opinion piece that provides insightful guidance for authors on how to respond effectively to reviewers' comments during the peer review process (PRP).It is particularly valuable for early-career researchers who may be navigating the complexities of peer review for the first time, as well as for more experienced scholars who encounter ambiguous or challenging situations.While the manuscript is commendable for its comprehensive coverage and practical advice, there are several areas where it could benefit from additional clarification and refinement, particularly by addressing some specific issues and minimizing redundancy to enhance readability.

RESPONSE
We thank the reviewer for his valuable feedback and for recognizing the potential impact of our manuscript on both early-career and experienced researchers.We appreciate his thoughtful suggestions regarding areas for clarification and the need to minimize redundancy.We agree that enhancing the readability of the paper will strengthen its overall value, and we have refined the manuscript accordingly.By addressing the specific issues highlighted by the reviewer, we aimed to further improve its clarity and utility for all readers.As the reviewer aptly mentioned, together we can achieve more, and we sincerely appreciate the reviewer' contribution in helping us move towards that goal.We thank the reviewer again for his constructive comments and support.The manuscript succeeds in presenting a wide array of strategies and practical advice that are relevant to the peer review process.It covers essential aspects of how to respond to reviewer comments, ranging from addressing specific critiques to maintaining a constructive tone throughout the communication.This breadth of coverage provides authors with a robust toolkit to approach various scenarios they may encounter in their scholarly communications.*Clear Section Structuring: The logical organization of the manuscript, with well-defined headings and subheadings, greatly aids in its readability.By structuring the content into distinct sections, the authors make it easier for readers to navigate the text and locate the information most relevant to their particular situation.This clarity in organization also helps to highlight the key messages and guidance offered, thereby enhancing the utility of the manuscript as a reference guide.*Practical and Applicable Advice: The article excels in offering actionable advice that authors can readily apply when responding to reviewers.For example, the suggestion to break down complex reviewer comments into manageable parts and to address each point methodically helps demystify what can often feel like an overwhelming process.*Emphasis on Professionalism and Constructive Dialogue: A key strength of the manuscript is its consistent emphasis on professionalism and the promotion of constructive dialogue.By advocating for a balanced approach that combines firmness in defending one's scholarly contributions with openness to constructive feedback, the manuscript reinforces the importance of maintaining a respectful and cooperative dynamic between authors and reviewers.

RESPONSE
We sincerely thank the reviewer for his positive and thoughtful feedback.We are delighted that the reviewer found our manuscript comprehensive and practical, particularly in its coverage of PRP strategies.It is reassuring to know that the breadth of our approach and the actionable advice provided resonated with the reviewer and that the logical structuring of the sections contributed to its readability and utility as a reference guide.We are also pleased that our emphasis on professionalism and fostering constructive dialogue between authors and reviewers was appreciated, as these are core principles we aim to promote.The recognition by the reviewer of these strengths reinforces our belief in the manuscript's potential to support authors in navigating the complexities of the PRP.We thank the reviewer again for his insightful comments and for recognizing the strengths of our work COMMENT 3. III.Areas for Improvement: Despite these strengths, there are several areas where the manuscript could be further enhanced by incorporating additional insights and clarifying certain points.I offer the following suggestions based on my personal experience as both an author and a reviewer: 3.a.Addressing Requests for Non-Citation of Specific Authors in the "Ambiguous Situations" Section: It would be beneficial for the manuscript to include guidance on handling situations where reviewers request that specific authors not be cited due to reputational concerns or prior behavior.In such cases, it is vital to determine whether the request pertains to the author as an individual or to the research itself.If the request is directed at the author for personal or ethical reasons, authors should consider contacting the editor privately to discuss the best course of action.This scenario is increasingly relevant in light of the growing prominence of post-publication peer review platforms such as PubPeer, where scholars openly critique the work of their peers.This transparency can sometimes lead to contentious situations, where certain researchers may be effectively "blacklisted" due to their public critiques.Addressing this issue would provide authors with a clearer understanding of how to manage such delicate situations.

3.b. Incorporating a Practice of Acknowledging Reviewers in the "Express Gratitude
Again" Section: The manuscript could be further enriched by suggesting the inclusion of reviewers in the acknowledgements section of the article when their feedback has substantially contributed to improving the manuscript.Beyond thanking reviewers in the response letter, a formal mention in the acknowledgements section demonstrates the authors' appreciation for the constructive role reviewers play in refining scholarly work.This practice not only fosters goodwill but also acknowledges the often-overlooked labor of peer reviewers who contribute to the advancement of knowledge through their insights.

3.c. Highlighting the Issue of Plagiarism of Reviewers' Comments:
An additional point worth addressing is the problematic practice of directly copying and pasting reviewers' comments into the manuscript.This practice may be viewed as a lack of originality and could raise concerns regarding academic integrity.It is advisable that if reviewers' comments provide valuable suggestions for improvement, these ideas should be paraphrased and integrated into the manuscript in the authors' own words.An extreme example can be drawn from my own experience, where authors copied nearly a full page of my comments verbatim to create a new "Limitations" section in a paper published by a "gray" publisher.Emphasizing the importance of originality in incorporating reviewer feedback would help maintain the scholarly standards of the work.

3.d. Reducing Redundancies and Repetition for Greater Clarity:
While the manuscript provides many useful insights, there are instances where certain points, such as those concerning professionalism and the manner of responding to reviewers, are repeated multiple times throughout the text.Streamlining these sections by consolidating similar points would help reduce redundancies and improve the overall flow of the manuscript, making it more concise and engaging for the reader.
To sum up, this manuscript is a highly valuable resource for authors seeking to effectively navigate the peer review process.The incorporation of the suggested improvements would further enhance its comprehensiveness and clarity, ensuring that it continues to serve as a practical guide for both new and experienced researchers.

RESPONSE
We thank the reviewer for his valuable feedback and for highlighting the strengths of our manuscript.We greatly appreciate his suggestions for improvement based on his experience as both an author and a reviewer.Almost all the reviewer' suggestions were considered.We thank again the reviewer for his time and thoughtful review.

3.a.
We thank the reviewer for his insightful comment and for highlighting the importance of addressing requests for non-citation of specific authors due to reputational concerns or prior behavior.This is indeed a relevant issue in today's academic environment, particularly with the increasing transparency brought by platforms like PubPeer.We agree that providing guidance on how to navigate such delicate situations would be valuable for authors, and we have included this in the "Ambiguous Situations" section.We thank again the reviewer for his thoughtful feedback.
We have added the following sentence: Finally, when reviewers express concerns about citing specific authors due to their reputation or past behavior, it is crucial to evaluate whether the issue is related to the individual or the research itself.If the request is rooted in personal or ethical concerns, authors should consider discreetly contacting the editor for guidance.With the increasing popularity of post-publication peer review platforms like PubPeer, ScienceOpen, and PREreview, such situations may become more common, necessitating careful consideration by authors. 35These steps/approaches are crucial for maintaining transparency and professionalism and the integrity of the PRP, and ensuring fair and ethical treatment of manuscripts.

3.b.
We thank the reviewer for his thoughtful suggestion regarding the inclusion of reviewers in the acknowledgements section of the manuscript.We agree that acknowledging reviewers, especially when their feedback has significantly contributed to improving the work, is a meaningful way to express gratitude beyond the response letter.This practice not only fosters goodwill but also highlights the important role reviewers' play in advancing scholarly work.We have incorporated this recommendation into the "Express Gratitude Again" section, as it aligns with our goal of promoting a respectful and transparent peer review process.We have also acknowledged the reviewers of our paper in our acknowledgements section (Please see our revised section: Acknowledgments).
We have added the following text: Finally, including reviewer acknowledgements in the article's "acknowledgements section" can strengthen the manuscript.When reviewers' feedback has substantially improved the work, formally recognizing their contributions demonstrates appreciation beyond the response letter. 15This practice not only cultivates positive relationships but also acknowledges the crucial role of peer reviewers in advancing knowledge. 15By highlighting their efforts, authors recognize the often-underappreciated work that reviewers do to refine scholarly articles. 15c.We thank he reviewer for highlighting the issue of directly copying and pasting reviewers' comments into the manuscript.We agree that this practice undermines originality and raises concerns about academic integrity.The reviewer experience underscores the importance of properly paraphrasing and integrating valuable suggestions from reviewers into the manuscript.We addressed this point in our paper to emphasize the importance of maintaining originality while incorporating feedback.In the section "Pay attention to details: Respond to every point raised" we have highlighted the issue of plagiarism of reviewers' comments and we have added the following sentence : Finally, to uphold scholarly integrity, it is essential to avoid directly copying and pasting reviewers' comments into the manuscript.8,28 Instead, valuable suggestions provided by reviewers should be paraphrased and integrated into the manuscript using the author's own words.8,28 This practice not only maintains academic standards but also ensures that the incorporation of feedback reflects originality and thoughtful engagement with the review process.8,28 Emphasizing this issue reinforces the commitment to academic integrity, 29 and enhances the quality of the work.

3.d.
We thank the reviewer for his valuable feedback regarding the reduction of redundancies and repetition in the manuscript.We appreciate the reviewer' observation that streamlining the sections on professionalism and responding to reviewers will enhance clarity and improve the flow of the text.We carefully reviewed and consolidated similar points to eliminate redundancies and ensure a more concise and engaging manuscript.Your suggestions helped us refining the presentation of our insights, making the content more accessible and impactful for readers.We thank the reviewer again for his constructive input.
To sum up, we have made substantial revisions to the manuscript based on the reviewer' comments/suggestions.We believe these changes have strengthened the quality and clarity of our work.We are grateful for the reviewers and thank him for his positive evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging its value as a resource for navigating the PRP.We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions for further improvements, which will undoubtedly enhance the manuscript's comprehensiveness and clarity.We have incorporated all his feedbacks to ensure that the guide remains practical and useful for both new and experienced researchers.We thank again the reviewer for his insightful comments and support.The benefits of publishing with F1000Research:

Competing
Your article is published within days, with no editorial bias • You can publish traditional articles, null/negative results, case reports, data notes and more • The peer review process is transparent and collaborative • Your article is indexed in PubMed after passing peer review • Dedicated customer support at every stage • For pre-submission enquiries, contact research@f1000.com Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?YesAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?YesAre the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?YesCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.Reviewer Expertise: Scientometrics, Research Evaluation, Peer Review, Research Integrity.

Table 1 .
Key guidelines for responding to reviewers: a summary.

Interests: None
This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Education Scholarship, Workplace Based Assessments, Program Evaluation, Mentored Peer-Reviews, Vitality of the Workplace I © 2024 N Love J.